shuksan

I'll be along by 8 tonite. So how much time are you going to give Winter for his attempt of the Pints?... ---->

So here's a silly idea. Put an "anti-spray" button that we can click on when reading a thread. If a thread accumulates a lot of anti-spray votes, then it gets moderated more severely. So when a thread like the rainier-record comes up, if enough people think it's important, then the moderators can keep the spray away. On the other hand, a lot of threads start out as pretty much spray, so nobody would want to "protect" them. This might also make the moderator's job a little easier, as it would point out the threads that people care about the most. Don't know how the details might work. Can you limit the number of "votes" each user gets for each thread, or each month, etc.

One thing you could check out is the sweet deal the snowmobilers get; they aren't actually paying to park at the sno-parks as someone mentioned earlier --- they get the $21 annual sno-park pass for their truck free with their $23 snowmobile registration. Tracking down how that deal took place should be interesting.

yeah iain, I'm a nerd, and so are you!

The A in ADSL stands for Asymmetric, not Asynchronous. Similarly, the S in SDSL is for Symmetric. Otherwise, AlpenTom has the differences straight. Symmetric = same upload/download speeds, Asymmetric=different upload/download speeds.

Way to go Jonathan! The attachment shows Jonathan on-route at about 3pm. The pic was taken from the Narada parking lot; he is just approaching the chockstone which constricts the couloir. Jonathan skinned up to Nelly and I soon after we had decided against giving the Zipper a go due to more than expected new snow and softening conditions w/ the sun cooking whatever was hanging around the top of the route. Since I'm too much of a gumby for the more sun-sheltered LL, we had to satisfy ourselves with ogling some nice looking potential ice routes next to Lane as we headed back to the road.

Could be 6-12" of powder??? http://www.seawfo.noaa.gov/products/SABWA

You ever take a car to a climbing spot???? Is the gallon of gas you might burn on the way any less polluting because you care so much? I think you're exhibit A for siso

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Stanford Climatologist Dr. Stephen Schneider Oct. 1989 Discover magazine

and I got a

Are you reading Goat's posts? Krugman is NYT economics columnist. Check out his rating on the (non-partisan) site lyinginponds.com. He's rated as the #1 most biased columnist, with not 1 of 99 columns favorable to Bush or republicans. As for TV media, how about Bill Moyers: " Bush's 'mandate' "includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich. It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable. And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you liked the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what's coming. And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture. These folks don't even mind you referring to the GOP as the party of God. Why else would the new House Majority Leader say that the Almighty is using him to promote 'a Biblical worldview' in American politics? So it is a heady time in Washington — a heady time for piety, profits, and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money. " This is uncritical??

When I lived in the DC area, I occasionally hunted on the Quantico marine base. Whenever they had a road-kill on the base, they sent somebody out to pick it up, and if usable, gutted it and gave the meat to a soup kitchen.

Why, then, do you get a contrail forming behind each engine in a multiengine plane? If general pressure changes were the cause, you would get a diffuse contrail forming from all parts of the plane? From what I've read the jet engines give out lots of H2O vapor and particulates that make nice condensation nucleii. Once this mixes w/ cold and drier atmosphere, you get a contrail.

Sometimes three out of four has to do... Looks like you guys gave it all you had. You wondered that maybe with a bigger and better matched rack... But even then you need some good places to put the pro. Sounds like those were in short supply and you just had a lot of hot sauce on that route!

quote: Hey Shuksan, were you the one sitting next to TG? Yep, that was me -- I better take credit for that spot before the good Dr. claims he was in it.

quote: Damn it!! I knew I went home to early. My aching head says you left none to soon! (where's the hangover Graemlin??)

allison, I didn't say the poor don't have the same rights as the rich, just that they are likely to be less able to assert those rights. Perhaps you're aware of 'legal-aid' programs that are set up specifically to help level the playing field in this respect? Before the Cleveland voucher program, the graduation rate was 32% -- do you really think the parents of these kids have the time/ability to be active in PTA programs, raise money for a school band, or challenge school administrators? They're too busy trying to keep food on the table.

Jim said: quote: Talk to your kids school teachers. I assume you have none in pubic school, or you're not connected to them, otherwise you might show some knowledge on the subject Ouch!! I suppose I also have to have family members on welfare to have an opinion on that, too... Actually, I have two kids who will be going to public school after they're out of diapers. Meanwhile I'm visiting the park and zoo more often than climbing. Jim went on: quote: If students left for private school because of vouchers then the cost per student would rise because of the loss of state supplied income, loss of federal contribution, and the fixed costs of facilities, heating, lights, janitors, etc. ... Private schools are dealing with a much smaller piece of the pie, usually white, middle to upper class, with a supportive homelife. At least in cases where vouchers have been tried, the facts don't support the claim of rising cost per student. The Cleveland voucher program ('97-'98)takes $2250 out of the school's budget for each student in the program. That comes out of the $2800 per pupil the school gets from the state, leaving the school holding the remaining $550 in state money. In addition, the school keeps $4600 local money for each departed pupil. Per student public school expenses break down at $4200 instructional and $2700 support services, and $200 misc. (from www.ode.state.oh.us) Clearly the $ the school keeps far exceeds all possible fixed costs. Similarly, in Milwaukee ('96-'97), the voucher cost to a school was $4400, which is subtracted from the $7500 taken in by the school. In any case, fixed costs are indeed not so fixed - here in PDX we're closing schools down to avoid laying off teachers and/or fixing the retirement system. The comments about typical private school makeup certainly don't reflect the reality of real voucher programs either. Cleveland targets 90% of vouchers to those under 200% of federal poverty level, while Milwaukee requires all participants to be less than 175% of FPL. Of the participating catholic schools in Cleveland, 59% of their students are below the federal poverty level. These are the people least able to "use their power as citizens to make their school better", as allison asks of them. They are also the ones most likely to benefit from vouchers.

chuck said: quote: ... Vouchers suck money away from the already woefully underfunded public school system. How does this work? If a public school system has 100 kids and $8,000 per kid to spend, it has an $800K budget. Now if ten percent of the kids make use of a $4,000 voucher to attend a private school, $40K gets sucked out of the public school system; it ends up with $760K for 90 kids, or $8444 per kid. The end result is that when vouchers are used, the public school system ends up with MORE MONEY PER STUDENT.

I always thought that for shotguns, the rifling is on the slug, not the barrel. Have there been some great new technology developments in the last few years that I've missed? What do you want protection from, bears? If so, I'd go for a 12ga pump with slug barrel. As for folding stocks and other "goodies", you should make sure they don't hinder grabbing the gun and using it quickly -- simpler is better when it comes to defensive gun use.

quote: The track record so far suggests it the protestors who are far more in need of protective gear. Police were doing their JOB at the protest, and didn't have a choice about being there. If OSHA had any rules regarding protest sites, you can bet you'd be required to wear all those "storm-trooper" accessories. The protesters, on the other hand, were making a free decision to put themselves in danger. If I attend a demonstration and the crowd becomes unruly/violent, then I'd better accept the possibility of getting "caught in the crossfire", whether that's pepper spray or charging horses. What we don't get from DFA's link is any hope for an unbiased representation of what happened, since this website was also involved in the organization of the protest. DFA seems to claim there was no one out to "break things and hurt people", but I've seen newspaper pictures of police cars being jumped on, and the only hospital injury reported was a policeman's broken wrist for being pushed to the ground. The trouble is that there is no easy way to get the unbiased story. Did people start jumping on cars before the pepper spray, or was it the other way 'round? I certainly don't think people standing at a barricade deserve to be sprayed, regardless of how they may be staring at the cops. One interesting thing about the DFA link is it shows basically two scenes -- the first with a bunch of police in riot gear and with horses where the text says the protesters were pushing the protest line back. The second is another barricade where the police have no protective gear, but where the crowd is claimed to be peaceful. This is where the pepper spray gets used first. Maybe these police felt vulnerable and that the crowd was ready to come through the barricade. Certainly plausible, given what they must have known the other crowd was doing. Of course this would not fully excuse the use of the pepper spray; it just makes it more understandable. If indeed things did happen this way, criticism is most fairly put on the planning that resulted in a bunch of police in shirt sleeves without adequate protective gear having to control an unruly crowd.

I took this thread as an excuse to educate myself about global warming research, and to play devil's advocate for MtnGoat and Fairweather's position, as they seem pretty well outnumbered here. Now, for evidence that supports some of MtnGoat's points. There are two main models used to draw many of the conclusions reached by the IPCC and also by the National Academy of Sciences report to Bush, as well as the recent EPA report. These are the Hadley model and the Canadian model. They both agree that the earth will get warmer, but have wildly differing regional predictions. They also both fail in trying to simulate the past record of temperature and precipitation, predicting higher present day temperatures than actual, as well as predicting that present day Colorado has a wetter climate than Louisiana. The following two links provide more detail on this, including graphics and some insight into how the disagreement of the models has been "swept under the rug" in the IPCC report. http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-062802B http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-032602A (To assuage the inevitable worries from AlpineK, Dr. Willie Soon, author of the second piece, is with the Harvard/Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, not Texaco!) A more academically pure reference to the above points is: "A Comparison of Simulations of Current Climate from Two Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean Global Climate Models Against Observations and Evaluation of their Future Climates", (Report to the National Institute for Global Environmental Change),Ruth Doherty and Linda O. Mearns ( http://www.esig.ucar.edu/doherty/figures.html ) NIGEC is a nonpartisan U.S. government organization. Doherty is with the National Center for Atmospherics Research in Boulder, CO. Some idea of the degree of trust the authors put in the models can be gained from this quote from the paper: "It should be noted that the future climates simulated by these models are in no way to be considered predictions or forecasts of the future. They are scenarios of the future and thus inherently uncertain." There are many skeptics of global warming (see the previous links in more detail). A good link to one of them is http://www.senate.gov/~epw/Legates_031302.pdf. This is the testimony to congress of Dr. David R. Legates, head of the Center for Climatic Research at University of Delaware and, among other things, an associate editor of the journal Climate Research. His testimony is clear and easy to understand. It also brings up the very points argued by MtnGoat, along with a few other points. For example, while the last century saw pronounced warming occur, the bulk of the warming was earlier in the century before most of the increase in CO2 levels occurred; when CO2 levels increased the most, towards the end of the century, there was little warming. At the end of the document are summaries of his research funding (all from the US gov't for his global warming research; other sources are agricultural groups), and an exhaustive list of citations from his journal articles. If you want the actual cites, you'll have to go to the link. He has published in Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Climatic Change, Geographical Review, and Global and Planetary Change.

I took this thread as an excuse to educate myself about global warming research, and to play devil's advocate for MtnGoat and Fairweather's position, as they seem pretty well outnumbered here. from AlpineK: So bring it on. Lets see either you or Fairweather come up with data that backs your claims. Remember all good scientists submit their work for review by thier peers, so your info should come from a scientific journal not some lone scientist out prove everyone wrong. and again, from j_b: I don't mean to be impatient (well, just a little) but since MtnGoat is fond of the concepts behind the scientific method: we are still waiting for the supporting evidence for the comments he made against the IPCC report. Let's look at exactly what evidence has been presented in this thread in favor of the global warming hypothesis, and why it ought to be accepted: (j_b again) MtnGoat: "The temperature increase is not seen by satellites which measure troposphere (lower air layer) temperatures which have been operational for a while now." not according to the 2001 IPCC report: "Since the start of the satellite record in 1979, both satellite and weather balloon measurements show that the global average temperature of the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere has changed by +0.05 ±0.10°C per decade, but the global average surface temperature has increased significantly by + 0.15 ±0.05°C per decade." MtnGoat: "Further, this increase measured by ground stations has data problems not usually discussed. Heat island effects of changing local environments may not be adequately controlled for, as is the decreasing number of stations and the way stations are grouped into larger measurement blocks." not according to the 2001 IPCC report: "Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ±0.2°C 5,6 (Figure 1a). This value is about 0.15°C larger than that estimated by the SAR for the period up to 1994, owing to the relatively high temperatures of the additional years (1995 to 2000) and improved methods of processing the data. These numbers take into account various adjustments, including urban heat island effects." MtnGoat: "The idea that we have a set perfect temperature at some recent point in the past is as anthro centered as the idea that we are causing warming." not according to the IPCC report: "The warming over the last 50 years due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases can be identified" j_b, I believe you got your quotes above from the "Summary for Policymakers" (SPM) of the 2001 report. Examining the preface to the SPM, it says "Based on a draft prepared by:...." with the names of lots of authors, with no affiliations. The SPM is a product written by diplomats, who are in no way bound by or a part of the peer review/scientific journal process that AlpineK refers to. There have even been allegations that the "Technical Summary" section of previous IPCC reports (which should be subject to peer review) have been doctored to conform to the desires of diplomats writing the SPM. A survey of IPCC member scientists showed that 40% disagreed with the report's conclusions, while 60% did not believe the models used accurately simulated the environment (see http://www.colby.edu/sci.tech/controversy/pages/ipcc_controversy.htm). So, j_b and AlpineK, I say show me the SCIENCE! (journal cites, please).

I took this thread as an excuse to educate myself about global warming research, and to play devil's advocate for MtnGoat and Fairweather's position, as they seem pretty well outnumbered here. First of all, from j_b: It is ridiculous to expect to have complete certainty before we change negative behavior (do you need to be certain that a crevasse is in your path before you rope up?). I don't think this is exactly what MtnGoat is trying to suggest. To take your very apt analogy a little further: If there were nothing to climbing on a glacier besides crevasses, then you are right. However, in the real world, it's possible to find yourself on a glacier with a low probability of crevasses and lots of rockfall in one area. In this case, you might want to balance the benefits of roping up with the costs (slowing you down and increasing exposure to rockfall); the prudent decision may be to travel unroped. Not to put words in his mouth, but I think MtnGoat is trying to say that we need to balance the certain costs of trying to mitigate global warming (direct economic costs, and opportunity costs - e.g. every dollar we spend trying to halt global warming cannot be spent on the AIDS crisis in Africa) with the uncertain benefits in terms of warming that may not even be real.

I'm new to the climbing situation in Portland, and looking for partners for Hood/Adams/Helens this year. Have done Olympus and two unsuccessful tries on Rainier (Muir and Kautz) a few years ago. Want to start in slow and find some quality partners before trying harder stuff.